"Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"

65cruiser

10-31-2008, 06:30 AM

Looks like a decent buy to me for a 4-door with a V8.

Mark Anderson
Member SDC and FMCA
Keeper of the Studebaker Cruiser Registry
www.65cruiser.com

http://www.65cruiser.com/images/studewordy.jpg

BobPalma

10-31-2008, 10:17 AM

:) Yes, Bob; I know of this car. I talked at length with the owner a couple years ago when he was trying to sell it locally, but can't find my notes on the conversation right now. I probably have them somewhere deep in the pile and if anyone really has to know, I'll keep digging.

True, it was donated to The SNM and remained there as a donation for many years, but not displayed as it isn't "museum quality" by any means. They sold it as surplus. If this guy didn't buy it from the SNM, he bought it from the guy that did.

From my lengthy conversation with him, I concluded it was "just a car." It is a factory V-8, straight-stick (no overdrive) Challenger, but the "extra" 2 doors;) kills enthusiasm.

When I talked to him, he really wanted around $5,000 for it, which I felt was just too high to pursue. I did not physically examine the car because it was over 135 miles away...and still is. :DBP

Roscomacaw

10-31-2008, 11:33 AM

I learned something by looking at this thing. I wasn't aware that the lower trim level cars still got the single-circuit master cylinder when the other drum brake cars got the dual-circuit. Talk about cost-cutting measures!
Bob, do you know if dual-circuit brakes were an option here? Does the PBW have a single or dual?

I learned something by looking at this thing. I wasn't aware that the lower trim level cars still got the single-circuit master cylinder when the other drum brake cars got the dual-circuit. Talk about cost-cutting measures!
Bob, do you know if dual-circuit brakes were an option here? Does the PBW have a single or dual?

:) Bob: Yes, The Plain Brown Wrapper was built with single-circuit brakes and still has them.

A dual-piston master cylinder was Regular Production Option #32 on 1964 Challengers, at $9.01. (But if the dealer was doing "whatever it took to make a deal," he'd usually knock off that penny and make it an even $9.00;)!) :DBP

StudeRich

10-31-2008, 01:55 PM

Bob; most '63 Standards, Regals and '64 Challenger, Commanders have the 1961-'62 square SINGLE master Cylinder, at least the ones I have seen from perusing the new cars on the Stude. Dealer lots til lately, seeing SDC show cars. There are so few '63 Customs (without Disc. Brakes), that I would have to check the Parts Book for that one, being a high end car I expect a Dual Master there. The ones with Dual would be a very rare option or changeover.

quote:Originally posted by Mr.Biggs

I learned something by looking at this thing. I wasn't aware that the lower trim level cars still got the single-circuit master cylinder when the other drum brake cars got the dual-circuit.

My early-edition (1962 printing) 1963 Salesman's Ordering Guide does not list a dual-piston master cylinder option for the Standard, but I wouldn't expect it to: The Standard hadn't been introduced yet. Material I have after the Standard was introduced doesn't mention the dual-piston master cylinder option, but I don't have every scrap of ordering informatiion on the Standard, so it may have been an option.

It certainly was a Regular Production Option on the 1964 Lark Challenger, as I posted earlier. :DBP

I'm still trying to figure out why they weren't standard equipment on EVERY Stude, from the first day they were available The cost would have been substantially lower if amortized across the entire production... and the much better safety would have been a great selling point as standard equipment!

[b]"Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"

BobPalma

10-31-2008, 10:47 PM

quote:Originally posted by mbstude

Thanks BP, got it now.

Still, why would a '63 Cruiser have a single MC on it?

Matthew Burnette
Hazlehurst, GA

[8D] Matthew, I'll bet a $50 bill that something was changed on that 1963 Cruiser in its lifetime and that it was not manufactured and left South Bend with drum brakes all around and a single-piston master cylinder.

Remember the story we just read (I think it was in the discussion of JDP's 399-point Jet Green Hawk) about a dealership that changed a brand-new GT Hawk's brakes from disc to drum, or maybe vice-versa, to satisfy a customer?

All manner of unusual things could have happened -and I'll bet at least one of them did- from the time that Cruiser was manufactured to when it landed at your place 45 years later. (I wish it was closer; I'd sure like to examine it!) :DBP

I'm still trying to figure out why they weren't standard equipment on EVERY Stude, from the first day they were available The cost would have been substantially lower if amortised across the entire production... and the much better safety would have been a great selling point as standard equipment!

Robert (Bob) Andrews

[:0] Now here's an odd way to look at that, Bob:

Studebaker's Automotive Division posted a loss for both the 1963 and 1964 model years...or at least the 1964 models built in South Bend.

So, in effect, they lost money on every 1963 and 1964 South-Bend built car. By using single-piston master cylinders on Standards and Challengers, they lost [b]less money than they would have otherwise! :DBP

bams50

11-01-2008, 06:49 AM

I knew that, Bob... but during that era they found the money to redesign sheet metal, interiors, etc and how many other changes... I just thought for a small amount and no extra tooling/development cost, they could have had a big selling point they could have hammered home every chance they had. Would have been a natural fit with their "common-sense car" theme.

That's just another of thousands of business decisions that has to be made as you go along. Just seemed like a relatively low-cost, zero-risk, zero-retooling move to make.

"Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"

Roscomacaw

11-01-2008, 02:23 PM

Bobs - here's another facet that somehow escaped the "bean counters" in '63 & 64. I've mentioned the '64 detail before, but working on this 63 Cruiser of late has made me realize a few more details...and I do agree with bams' notion. In fact, it makes the details I'll mention seem even more perverse.

As I said, I've mentioned this before, but for the benefit of the many new members we have, I wanna say it again. The '64 Larks are sharp cars (Yes, I know they were trying to doff the Lark moniker by then.) and I'm sure Stevens was told to hold the line when considering costly changes. Yet, have you ever held the left and right parking lites side by side? They're SO CLOSE in shape that it's really tough to tell which is which. There's NO reason or rhyme that they couldn't have used the same light and lens for both sides - none.

For 62-63, the parking lite fixtures and lenses again. There's NO reason the bulb socket couldn't have been dead center in them with a single lens to serve both as well. At the back of the car (for '62), symmetry reigned with taillights AND back up lites that worked on either side. But then, in '63, the back up lites got lefties and righties again and for no real good reason. You could argue that the moulding and it's related end pieces had to follow the edge of the decklid they're attached to, but it's not a good contention. If they'd simply ended that moulding with a cap that protuded and inch, then side-swappable fixtures and lenses could have been employed with a resultant savings in tooling and stocking of those pieces.
Small stuff I suppose, but certainly cost-cutting if employed.:)